https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2016septemberdecisions.php?

id=831

G.R. No. 221241, September 14, 2016

MARIO N. FELICILDA, Petitioner, v. MANCHESTEVE H. UY, Respondent.

FACTS:
Petitioner Felicilda alleged that respondent Manchesteve H. Uy hired him as a truck
driver for the latter’s trucking service under the business name “Gold Pillars Trucking” (GPT).
He was issued a company identification card (ID), assigned in one of GTP’s branches in Manila,
and paid on a percentage basis. On December 9, 2011, Felicilda took a nap at the workstation
while waiting for his truck to be loaded with cargoes. The next day, or on December 10, 2011,
respondent’s helper told petitioner that his employment was already terminated due to his act of
sleeping while on the job. Claiming that he was dismissed without just cause and due process,
and that his act of taking a nap did not prejudice respondent’s business, petitioner filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against respondent, before the NLRC,
docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 12-18409-11.
In his defense, respondent denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship
between him and petitioner, considering that petitioner was: (a) paid merely on a per trip
“percentage” basis and was not required to regularly report for work; (b) free to offer his services
to other companies; and (c) not under respondent’s control with respect to the means and
methods by which he performed his job as a truck driver.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was employer-employee relationship in this case

RULING: YES. The SC found merit in the petition

All the four (4) elements are present in this case: First. It is undisputed that respondent
hired petitioner to work as a truck driver for his private enterprise, GPT. Second. Petitioner
received compensation from respondent for the services he rendered. Contrary to the findings
of the CA, while the wages paid were determined on a “per trip” or commission basis, it has
been constantly ruled that such does not negate employment relationship.That petitioner was
paid on a “per trip” or commission basis is insignificant as this is merely a method of computing
compensation and not a basis for determining the existence or absence of an employer-
employee relationship.
Third. Respondent’s power to dismiss was inherent in the selection and engagement of
petitioner as truck driver.
The presence of the element of control, which is the most important element to
determine the existence or absence of employment relationship, can be safely deducted from
the fact that: (a) respondent owned the trucks that were assigned to petitioner; (b) the cargoes
loaded in the said trucks were exclusively for respondent’s clients: and (c) the schedule and
route to be followed by petitioner were exclusively determined by respondent.
Fourth. The latter’s claim that petitioner was permitted to render service to other
companies was not substantiated and there was no showing that he indeed worked as truck
driver for other companies.
Given all these considerations, while petitioner was free to carry out his duties as truck
driver, it cannot be pretended that respondent, nonetheless, exercised control over the means
and methods by which the former was to accomplish his work.
To reiterate, the power of control refers merely to the existence of the power. It is not
essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee, as it
is sufficient that the former has a right to wield the power, as in this case.